Re: GNAT versions ( was :Ada compiler for PC?)

[Robert Dewar <dewar@gnat.com>]

In article <7g3klg$26p$1@rtl.cygnus.com>,
  bothner@cygnus.com (Per Bothner) wrote:

> Well, I can't think of a single Gcc feature, major or
> otherwise, that was in our standard customer release
> before being in EGCS.

There have been some minor examples (at least you have
told customers this was the case), but in general, right,
the Cygnus policy is the same as the ACT one, anything in
a standard customer release is also made available publicly
at essentially the same time (in the case of ACT, there is
a small lag in time, simply because we prepare the customer
release first, if we had more resources, we could probably
eliminate even this couple of weeks lag).

> Note:  I am talking about the standard GNUPro product;
> not contracted deliverables made to a specific customer.

But actually this was the crux of the issue here in the
discussion with regard to GNAT. Not the issue of standard
releases, but the issue of special releases to specific
customers to meet specific contract requirements for these
customers.

> (Obviously, if somebody pays for a new port to an
> unannounced chip, we are not going to put into Egcs
> before it is announced!)

What I wonder about here is the secondary distribution.
Yes, as Cygnus you can give the product back to the chip
maker here, but presumably the chip maker cannot distribute
this to any third party with any kind of ND restrictions.
That seems an awkward situation.

For example, suppose that Cygnus did a Merced port for
Intel, then Intel could not give it to anyone else, e.g.
to develop a Linux for it, with non-disclosure restrictions
that would prevent them from distributing it.

One of the interesting points of the GPL is that it allows
ONE organization to do internal work in complete secrecy,
unhampered by GPL restrictions of any kind, but this
does not extend to two companies working together, because
every time they send a copy between them, it must be sent
in unrestricted manner.

I should say that I have discussed this point explicitly
with Richard Stallman, and he agrees with this assessment
of both the intent and effect of the GPL.


> I don't think it is proper for you to say what "Cygnus
> feels".  At the very least put in a "my guess is ...".

This was not a guess, it was based on a direct conversation
with Cygnus folks. Incidentally I did not intend it as a
criticism. If indeed most changes to GDB are done by Cygnus
it is perfectly reasonable for them to worry that opening
things up can cause extra work without sufficient return.
The reason EGCS works well on both sides is that although
it is true that most contributions to EGCS have been from
Cygnus, there are many important contributions from
elsewhere. So far this is not true of GDB, but we hope it
may be in the future, and Cygnus certainly shares this
(again I am not guessing, this is based on direct
interactions, but in any case it is an entirely reasonable
position, and is what I would have guessed in any case).
>

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own